Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 8, 2026
Minimally Invasive Treatment for Thoracolumbar Burst Fracture Using Sagittal Alignment Screws and A Trauma Reduction Device
Published on: November 8, 2024
Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fractures who need transfers
Chih-Yuan Fu1, Yu-Tung Wu, Chien-Hung Liao
1Department of Trauma and Emergency Surgery, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Chang Gung University, Taoyuan, Taiwan.
Introduction:
Patients with pelvic fracture usually require transfers to trauma centers for additional advanced treatment. Patient safety during the transfer should always be a priority. The noninvasive pelvic circumferential compression device (PCCD) can reportedly provide a tamponade effect, which reduces hemorrhage. In the present study, we evaluated the feasibility and efficiency of PCCD in patients with pelvic fracture who required transfer to trauma centers.
Materials And Methods:
In the present study, we aimed to evaluate patients with pelvic fractures who were transferred from other hospitals. We investigated and compared the characteristics of these types of patients with and without pretransfer PCCD. We compared 2 groups (with and without pretransfer PCCD) of patients under different situations (unstable pelvic fracture, stable pelvic fracture, or indicated for transcatheter arterial embolization). We also analyzed the characteristics of patients with unstable pelvic fracture who were initially evaluated as having stable pelvic fracture primarily before being transferred.
Results:
During the 53-month period, we enrolled 585 patients in the study. The patients with unstable pelvic fractures who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (398.4 ± 417.6 mL vs 1954.5 ± 249.0 mL, P < .001), shorter intensive care unit length of stay (LOS; 6.6 ± 5.2 days vs 11.8 ± 7.7 days, P = .024), and shorter hospital LOS (9.4 ± 7.0 days vs 19.5 ± 13.7 days, P = .006) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD. The stable patients who received pretransfer PCCDs required significantly fewer blood transfusions (120.2 ± 178.5 mL vs 231.8 ± 206.2 mL, P = .018) and had shorter intensive care unit LOS (1.7 ± 3.3 days vs 3.4 ± 2.9 days, P = .029) and shorter hospital LOS (6.8 ± 5.1 days vs 10.4 ± 7.6 days, P = .018) compared with patients who did not receive the pretransfer PCCD.
Conclusion:
Pelvic circumferential compression devices benefit patients with pelvic fracture who need to be transferred to trauma centers. Pretransfer PCCDs appeared to be a feasible and safe procedure during the transfer. In discussions between the referring physicians and the receiving physicians, we recommend using pretransfer PCCDs.
